8 yrs. full-time work experience including environmental advocacy and some time at the State Department immediately prior to my currnet position. I've spent the last three years working full-time as a law clerk in a civil firm, which is where I'm writing this post from.

If only I hadn't missed that RC bubble on the LSAT, things might be drastically different...

gitguy wrote:8 yrs. full-time work experience including environmental advocacy and some time at the State Department immediately prior to my currnet position. I've spent the last three years working full-time as a law clerk in a civil firm, which is where I'm writing this post from.

If only I hadn't missed that RC bubble on the LSAT, things might be drastically different...

they clearly don't like UG eaters so it may have been the same fwiw.

I'm holding out. This cycle is a different beast and they will lose some of the people they made big offers to, hopefully freeing up some cash. I'm going to be at ASW, and then shortly before some of my other seat deposits are due I'm going to try to renegotiate. This is my top choice and I don't see that I have anything to lose.

anteater1 wrote:spoke with Dean Austin about increasing my merit-based aid and she essentially told me it would only raise another $5k at most.

extremely aggravating, UCI was one of my top choices but they lowball me $75k when they offer other applicants with much lesser stats than mine $105-$150

I went to UCI undergrad and am strongly PI oriented, too bad they don't like me nearly as much as I like them.

What was your initial offer?

$15k but they gave me the unsolicited bump to $25k

with a 3.5/167 it's insulting how low that is given the other offers coming in on TLS and LSN.

This is the Internet. People may be making shit up. Or your personal statement/ UCI statement/ resume/ LSAT writing section/ LORs/ etc. sucked. Or you don't fill a diversity hole in their recruiting. Or you applied too late. There is probably a reason you are being "insulted," and I doubt you are identical candidate to those with whom you compare yourself.

anteater1 wrote:spoke with Dean Austin about increasing my merit-based aid and she essentially told me it would only raise another $5k at most.

extremely aggravating, UCI was one of my top choices but they lowball me $75k when they offer other applicants with much lesser stats than mine $105-$150

I went to UCI undergrad and am strongly PI oriented, too bad they don't like me nearly as much as I like them.

What was your initial offer?

$15k but they gave me the unsolicited bump to $25k

with a 3.5/167 it's insulting how low that is given the other offers coming in on TLS and LSN.

This is the Internet. People may be making shit up. Or your personal statement/ UCI statement/ resume/ LSAT writing section/ LORs/ etc. sucked. Or you don't fill a diversity hole in their recruiting. Or you applied too late. There is probably a reason you are being "insulted," and I doubt you are identical candidate to those with whom you compare yourself.

I would happily take the $75K. Would make things a lot easier. Nevertheless, there seems to be disparity among the awards being given to people with similar numbers. I think your theory about building particular diversity is probably in the right ballpark.

I've brought this up before, but didn't get a lot of agreement. But here goes, doesn't it seem like UCI is absolutely showering money on those above their medians, but, at the same time, accepting and waitlisting a whole lot of sub-165s (which I think we can all agree is not who they really want)?

The way I read it, they are fighting to hold their median this year. Solution: Blast your target scores with big schollys and hope they bite, but make sure you can put together a class of 130 and maintain your median.

gitguy wrote:I've brought this up before, but didn't get a lot of agreement. But here goes, doesn't it seem like UCI is absolutely showering money on those above their medians, but, at the same time, accepting and waitlisting a whole lot of sub-165s (which I think we can all agree is not who they really want)?

The way I read it, they are fighting to hold their median this year. Solution: Blast your target scores with big schollys and hope they bite, but make sure you can put together a class of 130 and maintain your median. Am I completely off the mark?

Other factors must be involved. I never ended up contributing to the stats but take this into account: 3.6, 164, Cal, no relevant work experience, major in rhetoric+anthropology, applied mid Jan and accepted some 2 weeks ago. The PS may have been half-assed a bit but I think the why Irvine section was solid, though who really knows these things. 30k off the bat. Maybe its the fact that both numbers are solid and I'm not a splitter at all? No idear.

gitguy wrote:I've brought this up before, but didn't get a lot of agreement. But here goes, doesn't it seem like UCI is absolutely showering money on those above their medians, but, at the same time, accepting and waitlisting a whole lot of sub-165s (which I think we can all agree is not who they really want)?

The way I read it, they are fighting to hold their median this year. Solution: Blast your target scores with big schollys and hope they bite, but make sure you can put together a class of 130 and maintain your median. Am I completely off the mark?

Other factors must be involved. I never ended up contributing to the stats but take this into account: 3.6, 164, Cal, no relevant work experience, major in rhetoric+anthropology, applied mid Jan and accepted some 2 weeks ago. The PS may have been half-passed a bit but I think the why Irvine section was solid, though who really knows these things. 30k off the bat. Maybe its the fact that both numbers are solid and I'm not a splitter at all? No idear.

30k/year?

UCI medians were 3.49/165 last year so you are definitely above the targeted gpa median and might be right at the lsat median for this year

gitguy wrote:I've brought this up before, but didn't get a lot of agreement. But here goes, doesn't it seem like UCI is absolutely showering money on those above their medians, but, at the same time, accepting and waitlisting a whole lot of sub-165s (which I think we can all agree is not who they really want)?

The way I read it, they are fighting to hold their median this year. Solution: Blast your target scores with big schollys and hope they bite, but make sure you can put together a class of 130 and maintain your median. Am I completely off the mark?

Other factors must be involved. I never ended up contributing to the stats but take this into account: 3.6, 164, Cal, no relevant work experience, major in rhetoric+anthropology, applied mid Jan and accepted some 2 weeks ago. The PS may have been half-passed a bit but I think the why Irvine section was solid, though who really knows these things. 30k off the bat. Maybe its the fact that both numbers are solid and I'm not a splitter at all? No idear.

30k/year?

UCI medians were 3.49/165 last year so you are definitely above the targeted gpa median and might be right at the lsat median for this year

Yeah per year, same offer as pepp and lmu with a much better stipend. I was ecstatic given uci's potential. I just hope employment stats remain so rosy.

gitguy wrote:I've brought this up before, but didn't get a lot of agreement. But here goes, doesn't it seem like UCI is absolutely showering money on those above their medians, but, at the same time, accepting and waitlisting a whole lot of sub-165s (which I think we can all agree is not who they really want)??

Isn't this what all schools do pretty much every year? I thought general operating procedure for admissions committees was to throw money at numbers above median in an attempt to balance out the sub-median people they accept, or to try to raise medians if they can. I was also under the impression that pretty much EVERY school is fighting to maintain their medians this year, due to the drop in applicants and the drop in 170+ LSAT scorers.

gitguy wrote:I've brought this up before, but didn't get a lot of agreement. But here goes, doesn't it seem like UCI is absolutely showering money on those above their medians, but, at the same time, accepting and waitlisting a whole lot of sub-165s (which I think we can all agree is not who they really want)?

The way I read it, they are fighting to hold their median this year. Solution: Blast your target scores with big schollys and hope they bite, but make sure you can put together a class of 130 and maintain your median. Am I completely off the mark?

Other factors must be involved. I never ended up contributing to the stats but take this into account: 3.6, 164, Cal, no relevant work experience, major in rhetoric+anthropology, applied mid Jan and accepted some 2 weeks ago. The PS may have been half-assed a bit but I think the why Irvine section was solid, though who really knows these things. 30k off the bat. Maybe its the fact that both numbers are solid and I'm not a splitter at all? No idear.

gitguy wrote:I've brought this up before, but didn't get a lot of agreement. But here goes, doesn't it seem like UCI is absolutely showering money on those above their medians, but, at the same time, accepting and waitlisting a whole lot of sub-165s (which I think we can all agree is not who they really want)?

The way I read it, they are fighting to hold their median this year. Solution: Blast your target scores with big schollys and hope they bite, but make sure you can put together a class of 130 and maintain your median. Am I completely off the mark?

Other factors must be involved. I never ended up contributing to the stats but take this into account: 3.6, 164, Cal, no relevant work experience, major in rhetoric+anthropology, applied mid Jan and accepted some 2 weeks ago. The PS may have been half-assed a bit but I think the why Irvine section was solid, though who really knows these things. 30k off the bat. Maybe its the fact that both numbers are solid and I'm not a splitter at all? No idear.